veni vidi vici
Active Member
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
#$%^&^%$#@!!!!!! and this is &^*%$#@! and im really tired of this #$^%&&^%$.
#$%^&^%$#@!!!!!! and this is &^*%$#@! and im really tired of this #$^%&&^%$.
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
- Thread starter veni vidi vici
- Start date
crimzy
Active Member
2 points here...
(1) Why do you think that you have the "right" to have an assault weapon? Do you really think that this is what our forefathers contemplated when they drafted the 2nd amendment?
(2) This ban was already in place until its expiration in 2004. It was in place under Bush.
Please stop whining and crying like a bunch of children at every move the guy makes.
(1) Why do you think that you have the "right" to have an assault weapon? Do you really think that this is what our forefathers contemplated when they drafted the 2nd amendment?
(2) This ban was already in place until its expiration in 2004. It was in place under Bush.
Please stop whining and crying like a bunch of children at every move the guy makes.
bionicarm
Active Member
Charlton Heston will rise from the grave. I quit going across the Mexican border to get my supply of cheap booze years ago. I have clients in many of the border towns in Texas, and I won't allow my workers to cross alone, or stay over there after dark. One of my guys just missed a fire fight by the Juarez border by just a couple of hours. The drug cartels have more sophisticated weapons than the authorities. So to that end, I understand the ban.
However, the NRA and gun fanatics will never let this dispute end. They'll find loopholes in the law, just like they did when Clinton signed the ban in '94.
However, the NRA and gun fanatics will never let this dispute end. They'll find loopholes in the law, just like they did when Clinton signed the ban in '94.
acrylics
Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2969797
2 points here...
(1) Why do you think that you have the "right" to have an assault weapon? Do you really think that this is what our forefathers contemplated when they drafted the 2nd amendment?
Absolutely, read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it explains it quite clearly. The citizenry is the final "check & balance", an unarmed citizenry cannot fulfill this role. Am I a pushing a revolution? no.
2) This ban was already in place until its expiration in 2004. It was in place under Bush.
And it was a worthless law to begin with, served absolutely no purpose other than to satisfy a few control freaks (politicians)
stop whining and crying like a bunch of children at every move the guy makes.
Would you have said same to our Founding Fathers regarding every move King George III made? This is not about O, it's about any person(s) who tries to take my rights away, for any reason, at any time.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http:///forum/post/2969797
2 points here...
(1) Why do you think that you have the "right" to have an assault weapon? Do you really think that this is what our forefathers contemplated when they drafted the 2nd amendment?
Absolutely, read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it explains it quite clearly. The citizenry is the final "check & balance", an unarmed citizenry cannot fulfill this role. Am I a pushing a revolution? no.
2) This ban was already in place until its expiration in 2004. It was in place under Bush.
And it was a worthless law to begin with, served absolutely no purpose other than to satisfy a few control freaks (politicians)
stop whining and crying like a bunch of children at every move the guy makes.
Would you have said same to our Founding Fathers regarding every move King George III made? This is not about O, it's about any person(s) who tries to take my rights away, for any reason, at any time.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
jp30338
Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2969813
Absolutely, read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it explains it quite clearly. The citizenry is the final "check & balance", an unarmed citizenry cannot fulfill this role. Am I a pushing a revolution? no.
And it was a worthless law to begin with, served absolutely no purpose other than to satisfy a few control freaks (politicians)
Would you have said same to our Founding Fathers regarding every move King George III made? This is not about O, it's about any person(s) who tries to take my rights away, for any reason, at any time.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Ugh! here we go with the founding fathers crap again. The world is a completely different place here in 2009.
http:///forum/post/2969813
Absolutely, read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it explains it quite clearly. The citizenry is the final "check & balance", an unarmed citizenry cannot fulfill this role. Am I a pushing a revolution? no.
And it was a worthless law to begin with, served absolutely no purpose other than to satisfy a few control freaks (politicians)
Would you have said same to our Founding Fathers regarding every move King George III made? This is not about O, it's about any person(s) who tries to take my rights away, for any reason, at any time.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Ugh! here we go with the founding fathers crap again. The world is a completely different place here in 2009.
wattsupdoc
Active Member
Where in the constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms"for hunting purposes only"? Anyone who does not see the reason for a civilian to have an assault weapon has blinders on. You would think that after Sept.11 people would realize the need to protect ourselves from enemy combatants armed with assault rifles. The law isn't going to change anything anyway. If I wanted to rob a bank and use an assault weapon I could get one, ban or no ban. It just would cost me more......
stevedave08
Member
I love guns dude, I have a small collection. Now, I do like some assault rifles that I think are pretty cool, but in all honesty there is no reason for a civilian to have an assault rifle. I understand about defending ourselves, we can still have weapons, just not assault weapons. If an invasion were to happen on U.S. soil (which is very doubtful) I'd like to take a few out before they get me, you know. So, I'm not against this, but I still want to get my AR before it goes into effect.
jp30338
Member
Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2969830
Where in the constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms"for hunting purposes only"? Anyone who does not see the reason for a civilian to have an assault weapon has blinders on. You would think that after Sept.11 people would realize the need to protect ourselves from enemy combatants armed with assault rifles. The law isn't going to change anything anyway. If I wanted to rob a bank and use an assault weapon I could get one, ban or no ban. It just would cost me more......
HAHA, wtach out, the U.S. is going to be invaded LMAO!! You cant be serious...
http:///forum/post/2969830
Where in the constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms"for hunting purposes only"? Anyone who does not see the reason for a civilian to have an assault weapon has blinders on. You would think that after Sept.11 people would realize the need to protect ourselves from enemy combatants armed with assault rifles. The law isn't going to change anything anyway. If I wanted to rob a bank and use an assault weapon I could get one, ban or no ban. It just would cost me more......
HAHA, wtach out, the U.S. is going to be invaded LMAO!! You cant be serious...
jp30338
Member
wattsupdoc;2969830 said:Where in the constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms"for hunting purposes only"? Anyone who does not see the reason for a civilian to have an assault weapon has blinders on. You would think that after Sept.11 people would realize the need to protect ourselves from enemy combatants armed with assault rifles. The law isn't going to change anything anyway. If I wanted to rob a bank and use an assault weapon I could get one, ban or no ban. It just would cost me more......[/QUOTE
Evryone hurry and stock up on the assualt weapons, another group of 12 terrorists are going to take over the U.S.
jdl
Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2969797
2 points here...
(1) Why do you think that you have the "right" to have an assault weapon? Do you really think that this is what our forefathers contemplated when they drafted the 2nd amendment?
(2) This ban was already in place until its expiration in 2004. It was in place under Bush.
Please stop whining and crying like a bunch of children at every move the guy makes.
I doubt the forefathers ever imagined weapons to be this advanced. It isnt a matter of why do you need one. I have one and i love it.
Assault weapons arent the weapon of choice for crime. Sure some are used, but the lovely handgun rules the criminal world. Banning assault weapons from the general public will do one thing, keep them in the hands of criminals only. There are many illegal weapons and other arsenal that is banned, yet easy to get or alter.
I'll turn the question around, why do you think anyone has the right to ban them?
http:///forum/post/2969797
2 points here...
(1) Why do you think that you have the "right" to have an assault weapon? Do you really think that this is what our forefathers contemplated when they drafted the 2nd amendment?
(2) This ban was already in place until its expiration in 2004. It was in place under Bush.
Please stop whining and crying like a bunch of children at every move the guy makes.
I doubt the forefathers ever imagined weapons to be this advanced. It isnt a matter of why do you need one. I have one and i love it.
Assault weapons arent the weapon of choice for crime. Sure some are used, but the lovely handgun rules the criminal world. Banning assault weapons from the general public will do one thing, keep them in the hands of criminals only. There are many illegal weapons and other arsenal that is banned, yet easy to get or alter.
I'll turn the question around, why do you think anyone has the right to ban them?
acrylics
Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2969829
Ugh! here we go with the founding fathers crap again. The world is a completely different place here in 2009.
And the Constitution was written in 1787 and it's principles still hold true, to the point that it is still the supreme law of the land, written by our Founding Fathers. If it was such a different place, the same tried and true Constitution would not be our supreme law.
Crimzy brought up the Founding Fathers, I answered. If you feel that the principles on which our Country is founded are "crap", well.... your choice
http:///forum/post/2969829
Ugh! here we go with the founding fathers crap again. The world is a completely different place here in 2009.
And the Constitution was written in 1787 and it's principles still hold true, to the point that it is still the supreme law of the land, written by our Founding Fathers. If it was such a different place, the same tried and true Constitution would not be our supreme law.
Crimzy brought up the Founding Fathers, I answered. If you feel that the principles on which our Country is founded are "crap", well.... your choice
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2969797
2 points here...
(1) Why do you think that you have the "right" to have an assault weapon? Do you really think that this is what our forefathers contemplated when they drafted the 2nd amendment?
Considering the founding fathers allowed citizens to have cannons in private ownership and then later the gatling gun decades down the line, I would think the assault rifle would fit into their frame of mind.
That is just me though.
http:///forum/post/2969797
2 points here...
(1) Why do you think that you have the "right" to have an assault weapon? Do you really think that this is what our forefathers contemplated when they drafted the 2nd amendment?
Considering the founding fathers allowed citizens to have cannons in private ownership and then later the gatling gun decades down the line, I would think the assault rifle would fit into their frame of mind.
That is just me though.
jp30338
Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2969886
And the Constitution was written in 1787 and it's principles still hold true, to the point that it is still the supreme law of the land, written by our Founding Fathers. If it was such a different place, the same tried and true Constitution would not be our supreme law.
Crimzy brought up the Founding Fathers, I answered. If you feel that the principles on which our Country is founded are "crap", well.... your choice
Yep, It sure is MY choice
http:///forum/post/2969886
And the Constitution was written in 1787 and it's principles still hold true, to the point that it is still the supreme law of the land, written by our Founding Fathers. If it was such a different place, the same tried and true Constitution would not be our supreme law.
Crimzy brought up the Founding Fathers, I answered. If you feel that the principles on which our Country is founded are "crap", well.... your choice
Yep, It sure is MY choice
jp30338
Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2969898
Considering the founding fathers allowed citizens to have cannons in private ownership and then later the gatling gun decades down the line, I would think the assault rifle would fit into their frame of mind.
That is just me though.
What was good back in those days, does not make it good now...
The reason they wanted its citizens to bear arms was to protect the country, since the military was unable to. This has no meaning in todays society, we have a very capable military, police, etc. to do the JOB.
http:///forum/post/2969898
Considering the founding fathers allowed citizens to have cannons in private ownership and then later the gatling gun decades down the line, I would think the assault rifle would fit into their frame of mind.
That is just me though.
What was good back in those days, does not make it good now...
The reason they wanted its citizens to bear arms was to protect the country, since the military was unable to. This has no meaning in todays society, we have a very capable military, police, etc. to do the JOB.
ruaround
Active Member
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THIS ASSAULT RIFLE!!!
A new Nail Gun, made by DeWalt, has just been introduced.
It can drive a 16-D nail through a 2 X 4 at 200 yards. This makes construction
a breeze. You can sit in your lawn chair and build a fence.
Just get your wife to hold the fence boards in place while you sit back,
relax with a cold beer and when she has the board in the right place, just fire away.
With the hundred round magazine, you can build the fence with a minimum of reloading.
After a day of fence building with the new DeWalt Rapid fire nail gun,
the wife will not ask you to build or fix anything again.
A new Nail Gun, made by DeWalt, has just been introduced.
It can drive a 16-D nail through a 2 X 4 at 200 yards. This makes construction
a breeze. You can sit in your lawn chair and build a fence.
Just get your wife to hold the fence boards in place while you sit back,
relax with a cold beer and when she has the board in the right place, just fire away.
With the hundred round magazine, you can build the fence with a minimum of reloading.
After a day of fence building with the new DeWalt Rapid fire nail gun,
the wife will not ask you to build or fix anything again.
kjr_trig
Active Member
Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2969830
Where in the constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms"for hunting purposes only"? Anyone who does not see the reason for a civilian to have an assault weapon has blinders on. You would think that after Sept.11 people would realize the need to protect ourselves from enemy combatants armed with assault rifles. The law isn't going to change anything anyway. If I wanted to rob a bank and use an assault weapon I could get one, ban or no ban. It just would cost me more......
Gimme a break Doc...I own a pistol, I don't even know what the hell it is, but it is for protection....You are going to tell me you need an "assault" weapon to protect yourself because of 9/11??? C'mon.
And spare we the founding fathers stuff too, its not 1787 anymore.
http:///forum/post/2969830
Where in the constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms"for hunting purposes only"? Anyone who does not see the reason for a civilian to have an assault weapon has blinders on. You would think that after Sept.11 people would realize the need to protect ourselves from enemy combatants armed with assault rifles. The law isn't going to change anything anyway. If I wanted to rob a bank and use an assault weapon I could get one, ban or no ban. It just would cost me more......
Gimme a break Doc...I own a pistol, I don't even know what the hell it is, but it is for protection....You are going to tell me you need an "assault" weapon to protect yourself because of 9/11??? C'mon.
And spare we the founding fathers stuff too, its not 1787 anymore.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2969936
What was good back in those days, does not make it good now...
The reason they wanted its citizens to bear arms was to protect the country, since the military was unable to. This has no meaning in todays society, we have a very capable military, police, etc. to do the JOB.
You obviously didn't learn that part of history very well.
A widespread fear during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens.
Keep in mind every person was viewed as a member of the militia provided it did not conflict with the religious views.
While times may have changed regarding the implementation of the militia, based off the federalists and anti-federalists papers it is my understand tht the population should be armed to prevent the government from abuse of power as was done to the british colonists when England took away their weapons at the beginning of the revolution. An unarmed population is easier to control and thus keep under control and cowed.............
http:///forum/post/2969936
What was good back in those days, does not make it good now...
The reason they wanted its citizens to bear arms was to protect the country, since the military was unable to. This has no meaning in todays society, we have a very capable military, police, etc. to do the JOB.
You obviously didn't learn that part of history very well.
A widespread fear during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens.
Keep in mind every person was viewed as a member of the militia provided it did not conflict with the religious views.
While times may have changed regarding the implementation of the militia, based off the federalists and anti-federalists papers it is my understand tht the population should be armed to prevent the government from abuse of power as was done to the british colonists when England took away their weapons at the beginning of the revolution. An unarmed population is easier to control and thus keep under control and cowed.............